Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 184 / Monday, September 24, 2007 / Notices 54249 

rebut an express or implied charge 

against the declarant of recent 

fabrication or improper influence or 

motive.’’ Unlike Rule 801(d)(1)(A), the 

earlier consistent statement need not 

have been made under oath or at any 

type of proceeding. On its face, the Rule 

does not require that the consistent 

statement offered have been made prior 

to the time the improper influence or 

motive arose or prior to the alleged 

recent fabrication. Notwithstanding this, 

the Supreme Court has read such a 

requirement into the rule. Tome v. 

United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995); see 

also United States v. Allison, 49 M.J. 54 

(C.A.A.F. 1998). The limitation does 

not, however, prevent admission of a 

consistent statement made after an 

inconsistent statement but before the 

improper influence or motive arose. 

United States v. Scholle, 553 F. 2d 1109 

(8th Cir. 1977). Rule 801(d)(1)(B) 

provides a possible means to admit 

evidence of fresh complaint in 

prosecution of sexual offenses. 

Although limited to circumstances in 

which there is a charge, for example, of 

recent fabrication, the Rule, when 

applicable, would permit not only fact 

of fresh complaint, as is presently 

possible, but also the entire portion of 

the consistent statement.’’

Dated: September 18, 2007. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, DoD. 

[FR Doc. E7–18787 Filed 9–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Defense Science Board 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee 

meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board 

Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Surety 

will meet in closed session on October 

10–11, 2007; at the Institute for Defense 

Analyses, 4850 Mark Center Drive, 

Alexandria, VA. 

The mission of the Defense Science 

Board is to advise the Secretary of 

Defense and the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology & 

Logistics on scientific and technical 

matters as they affect the perceived 

needs of the Department of Defense. At 

the meeting, the Defense Science Board 

Task Force will: Assess all aspects of 

nuclear weapons surety; continue to 

build on the work of the former Joint 

Advisory Committee on Nuclear 

Weapons Surety, the Nuclear C2 System 

End-to-End Review and the Drell Panel; 

and review and recommend methods 

and strategies to maintain a safe, secure 

and viable nuclear deterrent. 

The task force’s findings and 

recommendations, pursuant to 41 CFR 

102–3.140 through 102–3.165, will be 

presented and discussed by the 

membership of the Defense Science 

Board prior to being presented to the 

Government’s decision maker. 

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.120 and 

102–3.150, the Designated Federal 

Officer for the Defense Science Board 

will determine and announce in the 

Federal Register when the findings and 

recommendations of the October 10–11, 

2007, meeting are deliberated by the 

Defense Science Board. 

Interested persons may submit a 

written statement for consideration by 

the Defense Science Board. Individuals 

submitting a written statement must 

submit their statement to the Designated 

Federal Official at the address detailed 

below; at any point, however, if a 

written statement is not received at least 

10 calendar days prior to the meeting, 

which is the subject of this notice, then 

it may not be provided to or considered 

by the Defense Science Board. The 

Designated Federal Official will review 

all timely submissions with the Defense 

Science Board Chairperson, and ensure 

they are provided to members of the 

Defense Science Board before the 

meeting that is the subject of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David McDarby, HQ DTRA/OP–CSNS, 

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6201, 

Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060; via e-mail at 

david.mcdarby@dtra.mil; or via phone 

at (703) 767–4364. 

Dated: September 17, 2007. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 07–4707 Filed 9–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management invites 

comments on the submission for OMB 

review as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before October 

24, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be emailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to (202) 245–6623. Commenters should 

include the following subject line in 

their response ‘‘Comment: [insert OMB 

number], [insert abbreviated collection 

name, e.g., ‘‘Upward Bound 

Evaluation’’]. Persons submitting 

comments electronically should not 

submit paper copies. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The IC Clearance 

Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, publishes that notice 

containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection, 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or 

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of 

the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

Dated: September 18, 2007. 

James Hyler, 

Acting Leader, Information Management Case 

Services Team, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Type of Review: Revision. 

Title: National Assessment of 

Educational Progress 2008–2010 

Operational and Pilot Surveys System 

Clearance—Wave 3. 

Frequency: One time. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

household; not-for-profit institutions; 

State, Local, or Tribal Gov’t, SEAs or 

LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 3,270. 

Burden Hours: 1,082. 

Abstract: These materials are 

questionnaires to be used in 2008 for the 

NAEP for administrators/teachers to 

complete to describe students identified 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES